Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) recent "legitimate rape" gaffe has brought greater scrutiny to the issue of whether pro-lifers should support abortions for women who get pregnant after getting raped. While the Republican Party platform does not include a rape exception, the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, supports a rape exception. In a Saturday interview with The Christian Post, Ryan Bomberger, a pro-life activist who was carried to term and given up for adoption after his mother was raped, said Romney and other politicians who hold that view should meet with people like him.

"I wish politicians like Mitt Romney would actually connect with a tangible real-life example of the possibility that resulted from a choice of life instead of a choice of death," Bomberger said.

Bomberger believes that Akin's comments were "unfortunate," because he allowed "himself to get sucked into that typical thing" where "they use the extreme cases to justify all the other cases."

"The reality is," Bomberger added, "I wish Mitt Romney would meet people like me ... and understand that it's more than just a one percent fringe case and we can just immediately write them off, because the assumption is always that abortion is the natural follow-up to a rape."

Bomberger was speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. While at the conference, he had spoken to three women who shared that they had gotten pregnant after being raped. Two of them gave up the child for adoption while the third kept and parented her child.

"These are stories that are worth hearing, but the abortion activists don't want to hear that side of things," Bomberger argued. "They don't want to hear from an actual woman's perspective who has been through that ... . I'm able to speak from a perspective of someone who was given life despite my mom's traumatic experience."

Bomberger also pointed out that, while there was "uproar" over Akin's "legitimate rape" comments, Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, is based upon an illegitimate rape, because the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, lied about being raped in order to get the court to hear the case.

"They should be upset about that, but, of course, you don't hear pro-abortion activists being upset about that," Bomberger complained.

Akin's controversial remarks came in an interview aired on Aug. 19. He said that a "legitimate rape" rarely results in a pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." He later apologized and said he misspoke.

Bomberger is the co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, which is, according to its website, "an educational life-affirming organization that tackles social issues in the context of God-given purpose."

I wish supposed pro lifers would worry half as much about Obama demanding taxpayer funded abortion on demand up to birth being written into the 2012 Democrat party platform as they do about Romney not being perfectly 100% pure.

2
posted on 09/16/2012 4:59:46 PM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)

If the answer is — “Because I believe that abortion kills an innocent human being”... then this begs the next question -— Why is killing an innocent human being evil in one case but not the other?

I guess the answer to that would be this -— Because in the case of rape and incest, the mother was FORCED to conceive whereas in the case of the others, the conception was unintentional and the sex voluntary...

Well, the next obvious question is this -— Why is killing the baby in the case of rape the only option? Society does not have to FORCE the woman to be the mother of the baby conceived from rape. What about ADOPTION? What about Orphanages? Why do people never even consider these options anymore?

Akin is not alone in saying dumb things. And since the ‘smart’ people have to keep telling Missouri voters just how big a loser Akin is, I am going to remind people about the GOP nominee for president. Wonder now, since one of the broken record complaints against Akin is that Claire funded his campaign, seems really rather strange given all the money already spent on our nominee. Who do people think ‘OccupyWallStreet’ was alll about, and how many liberals showed up and voted in Republican primaries.... Shallow shallow silly silly peoples.

Romney never "evolved" on abortion, your GOP has created a monster in choosing Mitt Romney, he does not support the pro-life platform.

August 27, 2012PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?

ROMNEY: "No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. Im in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

Sorry but as one of the founding members of Conservative for the Re-election of President 0bama (CREEP0} posters your posts lack any sort of intellectual honesty or merit

Sorry you candidate of choice lost the 2012 GOP nomination. Get over it.

As someone who has just recently and very grudgingly "switched" to the ABO side, I nevertheless feel compelled to point out how utterly unconvincing and stupid this argument is. Do you *really* think it's going to convince anybody to vote for Romney?

20
posted on 09/16/2012 5:52:17 PM PDT
by Yashcheritsiy
(Remember - Allah is an ancient Arabian moon god, and Muhammed was a pedo)

OK, Mitt isn’t the best candidate. I argued rather strongly against him.

But, he is our only chance to get rid of the Obama who is far, far worse on every issue.

AND if he wins we have Ryan in there to help our cause.

Paul Ryan:

President Obama likes to say, Were all in this together.’ Yet how hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born.

21
posted on 09/16/2012 5:57:30 PM PDT
by garjog
(We do not want another four more years of the last four years.)

Supporting him is one thing, but trying to create the myth that he is pro-life, or to conceal that he rejects the GOP’s pro-life party platform is the kind of thing that needs to be corrected when that mistake is made.

“Supporting him is one thing, but trying to create the myth that he is pro-life”

Then it sounds like we agree. You just don’t say that Mitt is pro-life because of his past position and he support of rape, incest exception.

OK. I was just using the term “pro-life” to mean that his position now is that he opposes the vast majority of abortions. That is all that I meant. Opposing most reasons for abortion is better than Obama and the Democrats.

24
posted on 09/16/2012 6:06:44 PM PDT
by garjog
(We do not want another four more years of the last four years.)

My wife’s biological mother was raped by her step father. She carried her to term and gave her upmfor adoption. I thank the Lord everyday for my wife. She is a wonderful woman of God, wife and outstanding mother. I could not imagine my life without her.

Now Mitt is telling us that we all knew this during the campaign, that he was openly campaigning on his being against the party platform on abortion, and for returning to his pro-abortion position.

In other words, just as he has spent 5 years creating the myth that Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice”, now Mitt is giving us a Bill Clinton embrace and making us accomplices, and claiming that we chose him knowing his position.

Mitt is not only changing his position, and the platform’s position, he is trying to convince us that we have change OUR position.

Hey ansell. Why do you think that National Right to Life endorsed Romney? That is why I was calling him pro-life. I know RTL leaders in my state that supported Romney in the primary, even after I questioned them about this. They said they were convinced that he was sincerely against abortion now and that he stood the best chance to win.

If he is now taking the “health of the mother” position — code for any reason — that is serious.

I had thought he was for rape, incest exceptions only.

Did NRTL know Romney was for “health of the mother” when they made the endorsement in April?

It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win.

Mitt Romney has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn, the medically dependent and disabled, and the elderly. Romney opposes abortion and has called the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, “a big mistake.” Romney has expressed his support of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.

38
posted on 09/16/2012 7:41:25 PM PDT
by garjog
(We do not want another four more years of the last four years.)

No, they didn’t know, no one knew, but Romney now claims that everyone knew.

Those organizations are extraordinarily ‘flexible’ and easy to placate, you can look at all the money that Mitt spread around in 2008 to see the effect that it has on organizations.

Romney says in this Huckabee interview of October of 2011, that he would “absolutely” have supported a Massachusetts constitutional amendment outlawing ALL abortion.

*”Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established a definition of life at conception”* ? Mitt-””absolutely””.

The people who voted for Romney have to confront their own reasons for having allowed him to deceive them on the life issue. They also need to decide what they are going to let him do to the pro-life movement now that he has come out against the GOP pro-life party platform.

All clear thinking about abortion begins with the recognition that abortion is homicide. Homicide committed on a whim or for convenience is murder. The question is whether there are any instances of abortion which are justifiable homicide. Plainly there are — the child growing inside the mother’s fallopian tube instead of her womb in an ectopic pregnancy is a separate individual human being, but unless aborted both child and mother will die. Thus an abortion of an ectopic pregnancy is a justifiable homicide in defense of the mother. One can consider other cases where the mother’s life is at risk continuing a pregnancy and consider probabilities (at leisure rather than in the split second one might consider probable outcomes in deciding whether to use a firearm in self-defense) and conclude that other instances are justifiable in defense of the mother’s life.

Now consider the case of rape (as classically understood — sexual intercourse inflicted on an unwilling woman by force, deceit or coercion — not consensual sex in which the law has decided consent was not real or valid because the woman hadn’t reached whatever birthday the state legislature picked). A rape is a horrible traumatic event. Some women may be up to bearing the burden (what we Orthodox Christians would call the podvig) of carrying the child to term, and might even find that doing so somehow redeems the suffering they underwent in the rape. Others are not so constituted, the pregnancy to them would be a continuation of the trauma of the rape, a continued violation of their personal integrity dragged on for nine months ending either in labor pains inflicted by the will of the attacker, or another violation of personal integrity in a ceasarian section. Thus abortion in this circumstance is in the nature of self-defense.

The state ought not enforce the podvig of carrying a rapist’s child to term on the victims of rape. On the other hand, Christians ought provide a nurturing culture which honors as a martyric sacrifice the choice of a rape victim to bear the child and materially supports women who make that choice.

41
posted on 09/16/2012 8:15:56 PM PDT
by The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)

I guess the answer to that would be this - Because in the case of rape and incest, the mother was FORCED to conceive whereas in the case of the others, the conception was unintentional and the sex voluntary.

Incest is not necessarily forced sex. It can be, and sometimes is, entirely consensual.

A rather revolting concept, but true nevertheless.

42
posted on 09/16/2012 8:25:02 PM PDT
by Sherman Logan
(Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)

The only issue I have with this explanation is this — IT STILL INVOLVES THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT CHILD.

The moral issue is this — Which hold more moral weight? Nine months of anguish or the killing of an innocent life?

Yes, the child becomes a source of great anguish to the woman. So it is the anguish that should give the woman the “right” to take the life of a child?

If this is true, then it should be equally a “right” for one person to murder another because it just causes too much anguish for him/her.

If for instance, a woman has consensual sex got pregnant, gives birth to a baby and the father abandons her we little means to support the baby, how is the existence of this baby not a source of anguish? ( different types of anguish and pain, but anguish nonetheless ). Is she justified in taking the life of that baby because of that kind of anguish?

If the answer is ‘no’... why then is the answer ‘yes’ for the other source of anguish?

Lastly, why is killing the innocent baby conceived in rape not detrimental to the woman as well? Is it the case that nothing good could come from the pregnancy? Why assume that?

Some may even think the child is evil because he/she was conceived in evil. She has no hope, so she gets the abortion. But once the abortion happens, she realizes something is not right. The cloud is lifted and are many times horrified at what happened. However, since the rape justifies the abortion, she has to hold on to the evil of rape in order to stuff the guilt of the abortion down.

This makes the pain of the rape more acute. So now, the problem is worse than what she started with. It goes against her dignity.

Actually, the survivor of the abortion ( see the speaker in the above article ) argues that when women choose to allow the baby to live, she can start to see how something good could come from something so evil.

The child becomes a gift to bring healing for her. But ultimately,she needs real psychological and spiritual counseling; not just a cold “get kill the baby and over it”.

And again, if the woman does not want to be the child’s mother, we all ought to understand. But then, why is adoption not an option?

The question we need to answer is this -— will the anguish of the rape be assuaged by killing the4 innocent child?

“I listened to the rest of the interview and looked at the transcript.”

You say that NRLC didn’t know. Wonder what they think now, or did they get paid off with a nice donation?

When I think of the interview you quote am a bit shocked that Romney would not only support the well worn “rape and incest” exceptions and now adds “health”. It really deflates what ever enthusiasm that I had for him.

Looka like the predicted etch-a-scetch phenomena. He is moving to the center right before the election to woo the “moderates”.

I am hoping that Romney is doing this just to win and that his real position is closer to ours.

He may be doing what his (messed up, see Politico) advisers are telling him. “If you want to win you must move to the center on abortion.”

The problem is that we know who the pro-aborts will vote for. Adding health gets him no more votes.

If health is a rationale for abortion then abortion will be in any national health care bill that is worked out.

Still with Ryan on the ticket we must support the man — otherwise we get Obama which would be truly a disaster for pro-life causes up and down the spectrum.

Perhaps we can put pressure on President Romney to protect the unborn and vulnerable once he is in office.

45
posted on 09/17/2012 12:11:42 PM PDT
by garjog
(We do not want another four more years of the last four years.)

Support who you want, but know that Mitt Romney has ALWAYS been pro-abortion, the ONLY straying from that position was during the republican primaries from 2005 through 2012, as he had to maintain the facade for two primary cycles.

Romney tells us that he and his family became pro-abortion in 1963 out of love, in a moving personal story explaining why legal abortion is a must, but there is no real, or convincing story of what made him convert in 2005.

What we do know, is now that he is finished with the primaries, Mitt has returned to his life-long, pro-abortion position.

You needn’t agree with the argument, but I hope you now understand the rape exception: those who support is see such abortions as acts of self-defense.

Notice my own position is nuanced — the laws of the state should be more permissive in this regard than the morality the Church teaches and should not only teach, but actively support by providing counsel, material aid and honor to women who chose to bear children engendered by rape. And yes, Paul Ryan in his proposed legislation was right to include an exception only for forcible rape, as that is the only instance in which the abortion-as-self-defense argument stands (leaving aside threat to the mother’s life by continuing the pregnancy), shrill cries of “He’s redefining rape” from the feminists be damned.

47
posted on 09/17/2012 5:19:12 PM PDT
by The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)

When I said that Mitt had always been pro-abortion, you know that he was proudly pro-abortion from 1963 until 2005 don’t you? that Mitt gave to, and fund raised for Planned Parenthood, that he campaigned as pro-abortion until 2005, when he switched all of his beliefs to start running for president?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.